The world came to Gandhi to learn about his methods;
he did not go abroad to preach and exercise global leadership. The Indian elite
can perhaps learn from this. A response to Meenakshi Ganguly's call to India to take up its role as human rights global leader. A contribution to the openGlobalRights debate on Emerging Powers and Human Rights.

Yes, India has not exercised sufficient leadership on contemporary
human rights issues, even when it was afforded ample opportunities to do so. This
contemporary failure to lead stands in contrast to the India of the 1950s and
1960s, which, as a fledgling democracy without a significant resource base,
sought to exercise such leadership. India gave asylum to the Dalai Lama, and Nehru
enunciated the five principles of the “Five Principles of Peaceful
Coexistence,” or Panchsheel, which
India and China codified in a 1954 treaty.

Nehru, along with Tito, Nasser, Nkrumah, and Sukarno, also
founded the non-aligned movement in 1961, and while the extent to which that movement
succeeded or failed is debatable, India did at least try, in those days, to
fashion itself as a global human rights leader.

I can, therefore, understand the frustration that an economically
vibrant and politically assertive India is not doing more today.

Child labourers working at a brick kiln on the eve of India's Childrens' Day in Sivasagar, Assam, India. Demotix/Luit Chaliha All rights reserved.

Nevertheless, think about India’s global human rights
leadership from a different perspective. First, can a country with a poor domestic
human rights record have the credibility to exercise global human rights
leadership? Second, should it even
attempt so?

India’s
record of domestic human rights is shocking. Consider women and children. The human
rights of Indian women are violated every day. According to the Indian National Crime Bureau, 24,206 cases of rape were
reported in 2011, or one every 21 minutes, and 26 percent of these cases
resulted in conviction. The shameful Delhi rape
incident in December 2012 provided testimony to the state of affairs.

Assaults
on women’s dignities in India take place daily. Consider, for example, the
mundane issue of the availability of toilets; 70 percent of Indian women don’t
have access, with harmful
consequences. For example, women need to step out early in the morning
because they need to defecate in the open, and while doing so, are often subjected
to sexual violence. Lack of specially designated toilets in the workplace,
moreover, can force women to drop out of the labor force. The 2011 Annual
Status of Education Report suggests on average, girls aged 12 to 18 miss some
five days of school per month, and about 23 percent menstruating girls drop out
of school for the same reason.

Now, consider the human rights of children. The number
of children going missing is very disturbing: in Delhi alone, in 2011 and 2012, an average of 14 children went
missing each day. Many children are trafficked; they
work in roadside shacks, brick kilns, factories, and even in brothels. A New York Times exposé revealed widespread incidences of child labor in India’s
mining sector. The same articles
cited a UNICEF report that in spite of the 2010 law mandating that all Indian
children between the ages of 6 and 14 attend school, about 28 million children
do not do so. A quick Google search identifies several
websites documenting continuing child servitude.

A country
with such an abysmal record of domestic human rights cannot serve as a credible
global human rights leader.

So, why don’t Indian elites do something about domestic
human rights? The quick and simple answer is that walking the human rights talk
is politically and economically expensive. But then why entertain the
aspiration of any kind of global leadership, including human rights? India’s
contemporary obsession with global leadership manifests in several ways,
including the quest for a permanent seat in the Security Council, sending an
unmanned mission to the Moon, hosting the Commonwealth games, and more. India
may have not done much on global human rights. But on so many other issues,
India seeks a leading regional and global role. Why so?

My theory is that Indian elites continue to harbor an
inferiority complex and seek validation from the western world. The debate over
India’s possible global human rights leadership falls into this category. While
international leadership efforts fan Indian elites’ vanity, allowing them to travel
to exotic destinations on government expense and to make speeches to
appreciative audiences, it does little for children working in brick kilns or
women subjected to daily harassment and indignities.

India indeed is a country of misplaced priorities.

Like charity, human rights must begin at home. Instead
of preaching to others, India needs to focus on domestic human rights. Gandhi himself
recognized the need for a human rights revolution at home during the early stages
of the freedom movement. The world came to him to learn about his methods; he
did not go abroad to preach and exercise global leadership. The Indian elite
can perhaps learn from this.

You need to set your house in order - or at least try
really hard to do so – if you want others to emulate your example and grant you
leadership privileges.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.